This proposed amendment was proposed by the Congress on August 22, 1978. It was ratified by only 16 states by the time of its expiration on August 22, 1985, 22 ratifications short of the needed 38 in order for the proposed amendment to have been adopted.

Contents

Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.

Section 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.

Section 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.[1]

Representative Don Edwards of California proposed House Joint Resolution 554 in the 95th Congress. The United States House of Representatives passed it on March 2, 1978, by a 289–127 vote, with 18 not voting.[2] The United States Senate passed it on August 22, 1978, by a 67–32 vote, with 1 not voting.[3] With that, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. The Congress, via Section 4 of the proposed amendment, required ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states to be completed within seven years following its passage by the Congress (i.e., August 22, 1985) in order for the proposed amendment to become part of the Constitution.[4]

Ratification status of the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment

Ratified amendment

Ratification by the legislatures of at least 38 of the 50 states by August 22, 1985 was necessary for the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment to become an operative part of the Constitution. During the seven-year period specified by Congress it was ratified by only 16 states and so failed to be adopted.[5] The amendment was ratified by the following states:

Had it been adopted, this proposed amendment would have given Washington, D.C. full representation in both houses of the Congress. Also, this proposed amendment would have repealed the Twenty-third Amendment. The Twenty-third Amendment does not allow Washington, D.C. to have more electoral votes "than the least populous State," nor does it grant Washington, D.C. any role in the election of a President by the House of Representatives (or that of the Vice President by the Senate). In contrast, this proposed amendment would have provided Washington, D.C. full participation in the Electoral College. Finally, the proposed amendment would have also allowed the Council of the District of Columbia, the Congress, or the people of Washington D.C. (depending on how this proposed amendment would have been interpreted) to decide whether to ratify any proposed amendment to the Constitution, or to apply to the Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, just as a state's legislature can pursuant to the Constitutional amendment process. The amendment would neither have made Washington, D.C. a state, nor affected Congress's authority over it.[6]